23b: The 5th Year (Saccaka)
Victory over the Wandering Ascetic Saccaka
The Buddha conquered the wandering ascetic Saccaka while taking up residence at Kūṭāgāra monastery in the Great Wood near Vesālī. An account of this wandering ascetic, Saccaka, will be reproduced here from the Short Birth Story about the King of Kāliṅga (Cūḷa-kāliṅga-jātaka, Ja 301) and the Short Discourse about Saccaka (Cūḷa-saccaka-sutta, MN 35) and their commentaries.
A long time ago, 7,707 descendents of the Licchavī royal family of Vesālī took turns to rule the country. All those royal descendents were very much inclined to investigate into various ascetic views prevailing at that time. Once, a wandering mendicant, who professed 500 views, arrived in Vesālī. These royal descendents held him in high esteem and treated him well. A female mendicant, who also professed 500 views, arrived in the country of Vesālī at about the same time.
The descendents of the royal family arranged a debate between the two mendicants. The debate ended in a draw as one could not defeat the other since they were equally matched. A peculiar idea struck the Licchavīs: “Should the two be united in marriage, we could expect of them an offspring of great talent.” So they persuaded them to remain in their country without taking the trouble of wandering about. They treated them with respect and arranged for their maintenance. As years rolled by, the couple produced four daughters and one son. The names of the daughters were Saccā, Lolā, Avadhārikā and Paṭicchādā, and that of the son was Saccaka.
According to the commentary on the Short Discourse about Saccaka (Cūḷa-saccaka-sutta, MN 35) the names of the daughters were Saccā, Lolā, Paṭācārā and Ācāravatī.
When they came of age, they were given instructions on views held by their parents: 500 paternal and 500 maternal views, a total of 1,000.
Special parental advice was also given to the four daughters: “My dear daughters, if you find anyone who can refute your views, you might offer yourself as his wife if he is a layman; should he, however, happen to be a monastic, you might lead a homeless life under him.”
After the death of their parents, the wanderer Saccaka, being more intelligent than his four elder sisters, studied more and more unorthodox views in addition to the 1,000 that he had inherited from his late parents. Without wandering forth he resided in Vesālī and gave instructions to the young royal princes. Fearing that his belly, which was full of wisdom, might burst at any moment, he had it wrapped up with iron plates.
His elder sisters held the view that Jambudīpa was conspicuous through the presence of the rose-apple tree (jambu). So they used to carry rose-apple flowers and fresh leaves as they moved from town to town in search of rivals in the matter of doctrinal views. They used to plant a few branches of a rose-apple tree on a heap of sand or earth at the entrance to a town, announcing: “Anyone capable of refuting our views can trample it down,” by way of a challenge, before they entered the town.
As they wandered from place to place, they eventually arrived at Sāvatthī. Here, again, they planted a branch of rose-apple at the gate and made an announcement: “Anyone, whether a lay or a monastic, who can refute our ideology, can trample down this heap of earth and this branch of the rose-apple with his feet.” They left their word with the children whom they found loitering round the gate, and went into the town.
Ven. Sāriputta’s Intellectual Power
On that day, the chief disciple, Ven. Sāriputta, went for his usual round of receiving food fairly late in the morning, as he had been sweeping certain places in the
Ven. Sāriputta asked them to trample down the rose-apple branches. The boys replied: “Reverend Sir, we dare not do it, we are afraid…” Ven. Sāriputta urged them again by saying a few words of encouragement: “Boys, don’t be afraid; should they ask you as to who ordered you, just let them know that I, Sāriputta, the chief disciple of the Buddha, asked you to do it, and tell them also that if they want to challenge me in debate, they should come to the Jetavana monastery.” The boys summoned their courage and trampled down the rose-apple branches as instructed. Ven. Sāriputta went on his round and having received alms, returned to the monastery. When the four sisters came out of the town, they asked the boys: “Who has asked you to trample down our rose-apple branches?” They told them all about it.
The four women went back into the town, each moving along a different route, announcing: “We heard that the chief disciple of the Buddha, known as Sāriputta, is ready to engage in a debate with us. Those wishing to hear the debate come along.” Many people came out and went along with them to the Jetavana monastery.
Ven. Sāriputta felt that presence of womenfolk in the residential area of monastics was not permissible, and so he went to the central part of the precincts of the monastery to meet them. On arrival, the womenfolk asked: “Did you ask the boys to trample down our rose-apple branch?” – “Yes, I did,” was the reply. Those women then challenged Ven. Sāriputta to a debate on views. Ven. Sāriputta accepted their challenge and asked them as to who should start the questioning. They replied: “The onus of questioning rests with us.” To which Ven. Sāriputta said: “Yes, you, being womenfolk, shall start the questioning.”
The four women took positions, one on each of the four sides, and thrust a barrage of questions, 1,000 in number, which they had learnt from their parents. Ven. Sāriputta gave prompt answers to every one of their questions, just like cutting off the stalk of a lily with a double-edged sword, leaving no problem unsolved. He then invited more questions from the four women, who being subdued, replied: “Most reverend Sir, we know this much only.”
Ven. Sāriputta then said: “Well, wanderers, I have answered all the 1,000 questions that you have asked, and now I will ask you only one question and how will you answer it?” Knowing by now somewhat about Ven. Sāriputta’s standing, they dared not reply courageously: “Please do, Ven. Sāriputta, we will answer your questions,” but, instead, they said meekly: “Reverend sir, please do. We will answer if we can.” Before putting forward his question, Ven. Sāriputta made it plain to them that the question which he was about to ask was not of a higher standard but one meant for prospective novices who have to learn them after becoming novices and he asked this question: Ekaṁ nāma kiṁ?, “What is one?”
The four ascetic women could not make head or tail of the problem. Ven. Sāriputta asked them: “Heretics, answer the question,” and they admitted their inability: “Reverend sir, we have not the vaguest idea of the answer.” Ven. Sāriputta told them: “Now I have answered your 1,000 questions, while you cannot answer a single question of mine, who then is the victor and who are the vanquished?”
Their reply was: “Reverend sir, you are the conqueror and we are the conquered.” Ven. Sāriputta asked: “What will you do in such circumstances?” They told Ven. Sāriputta of what their parents had asked them to do in the event of their defeat, and expressed their desire to receive ordination under the patronage of Ven. Sāriputta.
Ven. Sāriputta then gave them this instruction: “This is not the right place for you womenfolk to receive ordination and you will be best advised to go to the monasteries of the
The Buddha expounded an account of this episode in the Short Birth Story about the King of Kāliṅga (Cūḷa-kāliṅga-jātaka, Ja 301). For further particulars, please refer to the commentary thereon. This episode happened only when the Buddha was taking up residence at Jetavana monastery of Sāvatthī, some time after the establishing of the female Saṅgha with the Buddha’s approval and also in compliance with Mahā Pajāpatī Gotamī’s express request when he was residing in Great Wood, Vesālī. This interesting episode has connections with the story of the wanderer Saccaka, hence its exposition here.
The Story of the Wanderer Saccaka
As narrated above, the four women ascetics had a younger brother called Saccaka, who was acting as an instructor of the royal princes of Vesālī. It was during the period when the Buddha was staying at the Kūṭāgāra monastery in Great Wood, near Vesālī, that wanderer Saccaka, pupil of the sectarian Nigaṇṭha, was proclaiming himself as one skilled in debating, one who was very learned; and people also took him to be a holy person.
He boasted to the Vesālī citizens: “I have never come across any person claiming to have monastic followers, a sectarian, a sectarian leader, ascetic or Brahmin (samaṇa-brāhmaṇa) or one worthy of homage, a Perfectly Self-Awakened Buddha, who could resist without perspiring from their arm-pits when I refute and rebuke them on the ground of views. Even senseless logs or wooden blocks could not remain unshaken when I talk about things in terms of views, let alone living creatures!”
Wanderer Saccaka was, in fact, going about the city and boasting about himself as one who was out to find faults with the ascetic Gotama. One morning, as he was strolling about and taking walking exercise, he noticed Ven. Assaji on his alms round at a distance.
He thought to himself: “I am a person who has been contemplating how to debate with ascetic Gotama’s teaching though I cannot do it yet, since I have no means of knowing his views. I must therefore try to get to know his views before I challenge him in a proper manner. Ven. Assaji is well versed in ascetic Gotama’s views and I should make him declare their doctrine firmly before I can find fault with Gotama and rebuke him.”
He approached Ven. Assaji with that end in view, and entered into conversation with him after exchanging friendly greetings: “Assaji, how does ascetic Gotama exhort his disciples? In how many ways does he give them instructions in minute detail?”
Whereupon, Ven. Assaji explained it to him in this way: “Descendent of Aggivessana, wanderer Saccaka, the Buddha exhorts his disciples in this manner. He gives detailed instructions in various ways, such as: ‘Monastics, corporeality (rūpa) is impermanent, sensation is impermanent, perception is impermanent, volitions are impermanent, six-fold consciousness is impermanent. Corporeality is not self, sensation is not self, perception is not self, volitions are not self, six-fold consciousness is not self (atta). All conditioned things are not permanent; all things (dhamma) are without self.’ O descendent of Aggivessana, wanderer Saccaka, the Buddha had exhorted his disciples in this way. He had given many detailed instructions in various ways.” The above is Ven. Assaji’s reply to the heretic Saccaka’s query.
Points of special interest which are worthy to note: From the foregoing statement, it will be seen that, in his reply to Saccaka’s query, Ven. Assaji mentioned the
Otherwise, Saccaka would have asked: “Assaji what is the object of your receiving ordination?” Then Ven. Assaji’s reply would be: “For the sake of the paths and fruitions.” In such a case, he would be exposed to censure: “Assaji, your Dispensation (Sāsana), after all, does not lead to emancipation, in reality, your so-called Dispensation simply is a place of oppression and destruction; your so-called Dispensation is a kind of hell plane of misery! Therefore, your minds are void of desire for joy. Indeed, you all have been wandering round striving anxiously after suffering.” It was for this reason that Ven. Assaji had purposely avoided the employment of the figurative term (pariyāya), and adopted the abstract term (nippariyāya) that could not have another meaning, hence the exclusive presentation of impermanence (anicca) and unsubstantiality (anatta).
Whereupon, Saccaka said: “Assaji what improper things do I hear? We have heard what ascetic Gotama has been teaching. Perhaps we could meet with honourable Gotama sometime when there might be some discussion. Perhaps we could then rid him of this evil view.”
At that time the 500 Licchavī princes were assembled at the Assembly Hall to transact some business. Saccaka thought to himself: “I was unable to decry the views of ascetic Gotama in the past because of not knowing anything about it. Now, I have learnt about it from his great disciple Assaji, and I know them fully well, I had better go to his place and reproach him for his views.”
He went first to the Assembly Hall where his 500 Licchavī princes were holding a meeting. He bid them to come out from the chamber, shouting: “Come forth, honourable Licchavīs! Come forth, honourable Licchavīs! Today, there will be a discussion between ascetic Gotama and myself about his view. It is going to be a grand show! Assaji, one of the five monastics and a well-known disciple of ascetic Gotama, has stood firmly on the view of impermanence and unsubstantiality. If ascetic Gotama also stands firm on the same view of impermanence and unsubstantiality:
Just as a powerful man taking hold of a long fleeced ram by its fleece, might pull, push and pull it about, even so will I pull and push and pull ascetic Gotama about with my arguments and refutations of his view.
Just as a powerful workman of a liquor shop, taking a big mat from the liquor shop, might throw it into a deep lake and seizing it by the corner, might pull it, push it, and shake it, even so, will I pull, push and shake ascetic Gotama about with my arguments and refutations of his view.
Just as a powerful drunkard, taking hold of a liquor strainer by its edge, might shake it up, shake it down, and toss it about, even so, will I shake up, shake down and toss about ascetic Gotama with arguments and refutations of his view.
Just as an elephant, which gets infirm only when it is sixty years old, might get down into a deep pond and play the game of washing hemp, even so, will I play with ascetic Gotama the game of washing hemp with my arguments and my refutations of his view.
When hemp stalks are in the process of being transformed into fibres, they are made into bundles and dipped in the water for softening. After three days, when they are soft and pliant, workmen come with provisions, such as drinks and edibles, for enjoyment when the work is over. They take hold of bunches of hemp
The royal elephant, imitating the action of hemp workers, goes deep into the pond and drawing water with its trunk, blows it on its head, on its back, on either side of its body, and in between its thighs. Hence the term, (sāṇa-dhovika) playing the game of washing hemp.
“Licchavī princes come forth, come forth. Today there will be a debate between me and ascetic Gotama on his view. It’s going to be a grand show!” Thus Saccaka invited his disciples.
Among the Licchavī princes there were those who expressed their conviction that: “The ascetic Gotama is not capable of refuting the views of Saccaka, it is Saccaka who will be able to refute the view of the ascetic Gotama;” and those who said: “What kind of a man is Saccaka that he will be able to refute the Buddha? It is the Buddha who will be able to refute Saccaka.”
Then Saccaka made his way towards the Kūṭāgāra monastery in the company of the 500 Licchavī princes. It was noon then and many monastics were walking to and fro to repulse sloth and torpor after having rich food.
In other words, these monastics were meditators in the day time (divā padhānika), who usually took a walk to and fro to expose themselves to the sun at noon and then bathed. They found this practice most helpful in developing concentration in their meditation.
Saccaka approached these monastics and asked: “Friends where does the honourable Gotama take residence at the present moment? We would like to see him.”
Early at dawn on that day, the Buddha, after abiding in the attainment of great compassion (mahā-karuṇā-samāpatti), looked into the 10,000 world-element and perceived through his omniscience, that Saccaka would be coming along with many Licchavī princes to rebuke him concerning his view. Therefore, he took his bath early in the morning and went out for receiving alms, accompanied by the monks. On return, he did not go into the scented chamber but went straight into the Great Wood and sat under a shady tree for the convenience of the visiting crowd, led by the heretic Saccaka.
Those monks whom Saccaka had contacted were meditating monks who had just returned from the Buddha. They, therefore readily replied indicating with their clasped palms pointing towards the Buddha, saying: “Saccaka, the Buddha is sitting under a tree in the Great Wood to spend the day.”
Thereupon, Saccaka went into Great Wood in the company of a huge mass of people. He approached the Buddha, and after a cordial exchange of greetings with him, he sat down at a suitable spot.
It should be noted that in addition to the 500 Licchavī princes who were his disciples, a huge crowd was following him, consisting of numerous citizens of Vesālī who were interested to witness the debate between the two distinguished personalities.
Those who came along with Saccaka may be divided into five categories: 1) Some people paid homage to the Buddha and sat in suitable places; 2) some exchanged greetings with him, saying words that would remain always fresh in their hearts throughout their lives, and sat in suitable places; 3) some bowed with palms together towards him and sat in suitable places; 4) some announced their names and lineage and sat in suitable places; 5) some simply sat down in silence.
Having sat down at a suitable distance, Saccaka addressed the Buddha: “May I, with your approval, submit a question concerning a certain subject?” the Buddha replied: “Ask, Aggivessana, whatever you like.”
This is the sort of invitation to questions, peculiar to Fully Self-Awakened Buddhas, and beyond the range of Paccekabuddhas and disciples (sāvaka).
Saccaka started questioning: “Honourable Gotama, how do you exhort your disciples? What part of your many teachings is most emphasised for your disciples?”
To which the Buddha replied: “Descendent of Aggivessana, wanderer Saccaka, I exhort my disciples in this
Saccaka said: “A simile occurs to me.”
The Buddha then told him: “Descendent of Aggivessana, reveal it boldly and vividly.”
Saccaka said: “Just as seeds and trees cannot grow without depending and resting on the earth that affords support; or just as a manual worker cannot accomplish his task without depending and resting upon the earth that affords support, O honourable Gotama, even so, this individual person produces merit or demerit based on corporeality that is self (atta); this individual person produces merit and demerit based on feelings that are self; this individual person produces merit or demerit based on perception that is self; this individual person produces merit or demerit based on volitions that are self; this individual person produces merit or demerit based on the six-fold consciousness that is self.” Thus Saccaka presented his view on self (atta) by way of similes.
He had likened the five-fold aggregate to the earth; sentient beings are dependent on the five-fold aggregates like the earth. They produce merit or demerit based on the five-fold aggregates.
Saccaka further said: “The honourable Gotama has thus discarded the very evident and manifest self and declared it to be non-self (anatta).” Thus Saccaka presented his soul theory firmly supported by similes.
The supporting similes presented by Saccaka are notable, quite valid and firm. With the exception of the Fully Self-Awakened Buddhas, there is no one capable of refuting his criticism and condemning his soul theory. In fact, there are two types of people: 1) Those who are tractable by Fully Self-Awakened Buddhas only and 2) those who are tractable by disciples (sāvaka). Those in the second category can be corrected by the Buddhas and the disciples, but those in the first category can be guided by the Buddhas alone. Wanderer Saccaka belonged to the first category and could be instructed only by the Buddha.
The Buddha had, therefore, decided to personally rectify and refute his view: “The descendent of Aggivessana, Saccaka, do you say that corporeality is self (atta), that feelings are self, that perception is self, that volitions are self, that the six-fold consciousness is self?”
Saccaka came to realize then that: “The ascetic Gotama has put me in difficulty, making me declare, confirm and admit my self theory (atta-vāda) in the presence of an audience. Should anything untoward happen, I alone will be condemned for my self theory,” and thinking of citing the people of Vesālī as co-adherents of self, he replied: “Honourable Gotama, indeed, I do say: ‘Corporeality is self, feelings are self, perception is self, volitions are self, the six-fold consciousness is self, and the general mass of citizens of Vesālī also say this.”
The Buddha, being 100,000 times superior to Saccaka in matters of views, would not let him make other people share the same fate with him. Instead, he would make his conquest over Saccaka alone, and said to him: “Saccaka what has the great mass of people to do with this? I urge you, Saccaka, to explain your view.”
What the Buddha meant to say was this: “Not all of these people are out to refute my view. You are the only one who has come to refute my view. They are here because you
Saccaka was thus pressed to repeat his own view: “Honourable Gotama …. Indeed, I do say: ‘Corporeality is self, feelings are self, perception is self, volitions are self, the six-fold consciousness is self.”
After causing Saccaka to explain his own view, the Buddha proceeded to ask: “Saccaka, since you have admitted that the five-fold aggregates are self, I will ask you in turn about this. Answer me as you wish. Saccaka, what do you think of the question I am about to ask? Would an anointed king like Pasenadi Kosala, or the crowned King Ajātasattu, ruler of Magadha, son of Queen Vedehi, have the power in their respective realm to order the execution of one deserving to be put to death, to order the confiscation of one whose property deserves to be confiscated and to banish one deserving of banishment?”
In answer to the above question, Saccaka replied: “Honourable Gotama, a king like Pasenadi Kosala, or the crowned King Ajātasattu, ruler of Magadha, son of Queen Vedehi, have the power in their respective realm to order the execution of one deserving to be put to death, to order the confiscation of one whose property to be confiscated and to banish one deserving of banishment. O honourable Gotama, even those federations like the Vajjis or Mallas have power in their respective realm to order the execution of one deserving to be put to death, to order the confiscation of one whose property deserves to be confiscated and to banish one deserving of banishment. What more need we say of an anointed king such as King Pasenadi of Kosala or King Ajātasattu of the kingdom of Magadha, the son of Queen Vedehi? He would have the power, Gotama, he deserves to have the power.”
The Buddha had purposely brought Saccaka to state this in order to completely crush his self theory (atta-vāda). Saccaka being unwise had even gone to the extent of “sharpening the weapon meant for his own execution,” by mentioning the governments of the Vajjis and Mallas in support of his statement.
“Saccaka, how do you like the question I am about to ask? You have said: ‘Corporeality is self.’ If so, can you cause that self to obey your words, saying: ‘Let my corporeality be thus; let my corporeality not be thus?’ When the Buddha asked in such a point blank manner, Saccaka remained completely silent.
Saccaka had discovered his grave mistake. He thought to himself: “The ascetic Gotama had brought about the destruction of my view. I was foolish enough to have created a chance for ascetic Gotama to defeat me at my own game. I have been ruined beyond redemption. In case I say: ‘I can prevail my power upon my corporeality,’ the Licchavī princes would stand up and rebuke me for my ugly body compared with their own beautiful, admirable bodies which resemble those of celestial beings of Tāvatiṁsa. In case I choose to say: ‘I do not have power over my body,’ ascetic Gotama would stand up and rebuke me: ‘Saccaka you already have said that you have control over your body, and now you have retracted your own statement.’ ” He had placed him on the horns of a dilemma. He therefore kept complete silence.
For the second time the Buddha asked Saccaka to answer the same question: “How do you like the question I am about to ask? You have said: ‘Corporeality is self.’ If so, can you cause it to obey your words, saying: ‘Let my corporeality be thus; let my corporeality not be thus?’ ”
Saccaka remained completely silent, and did not answer the Buddha’s question for the second time.
If no answer was given to a reasonable question put by a Fully Self-Awakened Buddha for three times in succession, it constitutes a grave act
Fully Self-Awakened Buddhas had fulfilled the perfections (pāramī) for four immeasurable periods and 100,000 aeons, out of great compassion for all beings, and, as such, the Buddha did not repeat the question for the third time, but changed the subject of discussion: “Saccaka, speak up now. This is not the time for you to keep silent. The head of one who does not answer a Buddha’s reasonable question for three times in succession is liable to have his head split into seven parts spontaneously.”
Then Sakka could not help coming to the scene under the guise of a Yakkha holding a burning, blazing, flaming thunderbolt and stood right on top of Saccaka’s head, as though threatening to punish him should he fail to answer the Buddha’s reasonable question for three times, but this strange spectacle was visible only to the Buddha and Saccaka, no one else could see it.
According to the sub-commentary Sakka had come holding a thunderbolt in his hand and stood above Saccaka. Sakka has great compassion for him, like the Buddha, and wanted to persuade him to give up his wrong views by threatening him in the guise of a terrible Yakkha wielding a thunderbolt. He made his appearance, not because he actually wanted to do harm to Saccaka but because no untoward mishap to anyone should ever occur in the presence of a Buddha.
According to the commentary the reason why Sakka came under the guise of a Yakkha was that, he had a desire to cause Saccaka to turn over a new leaf and accept right view. Sakka was in the company of Brahma Sahampati when the latter approached the Buddha with a formal request to preach the Dhamma. Both of them requested the Buddha to preach the Dhamma, and they, on their part, undertook to see to it that reluctant people are persuaded to act according to his instructions: “Let yours be the authority of the Dhamma, and ours will be the law of temporal authority,” hence the appearance of Sakka under the guise of a Yakkha in fulfilment of his undertaking.
When Saccaka saw Sakka under the guise of a Yakkha, his body perspired profusely through fright, beads of sweat came streaming down, and waves of air swirled round in his stomach. He looked around to see if there was any one also witnessing the strange phenomenon and saw none. He thought it would be unwise to shout out “a great Yakkha” when no one saw it, and would be like creating a chance for the people to turn against him saying: “We also have eyes but you are the only one seeing a Yakkha. You see it only because you dispute with ascetic Gotama.” He was so shaken that his hair stood on end and goose flesh developed all over his body. He found no one but the Buddha to take refuge in, and seeking shelter, protection and refuge only in the Buddha, he thus spoke to the Buddha: “Be pleased to ask me, honourable Gotama; I will answer.”
The Buddha asked him: “Saccaka, how do you like the question I am about to ask? You have said: ‘Corporeality is self.’ If so, do you have power over that corporeality and can you say: ‘Let my corporeality be thus; let my corporeality be not thus?’ ”
Saccaka replied: “Honourable Gotama, I do not have the power.” Then the Buddha warned him: “Saccaka, think it over again, ponder it over again before you give an answer. What you have said before does not agree with what you have just said; and what you have just said does not agree with what you said before. They do not corroborate one another,” and he proceeded to ask him again: “Saccaka, how do you like the question I am about to ask? You have said: ‘Feelings are self.’ If so, do you have power over those feelings and can you say: ‘Let my feelings be thus; let my feelings be not thus?’ ” Saccaka replied: “Honourable Gotama, I do not have the power.”
Then the Buddha warned him: “Saccaka, think it over again, ponder over it again before you give an answer. What you have said before does not agree with what you have just
Then the Buddha warned him: “Saccaka, think it over again, ponder over it again before you give an answer. What you said before does not agree with what you have just said; and what you have just said does not agree with what you said before. They do not corroborate one another,” and he proceeded to ask: “Saccaka, how do you like the question I am about to ask? You have said: ‘Volitions are self.’ If so, do you have power over those volitions and can you say: ‘Let my volitions be thus; let my volitions be not thus?’ Saccaka replied: “Honourable Gotama, I do not have the power.”
Then the Buddha warned him: “Saccaka, think it over again, ponder over it again before you give an answer. What you said before does not agree with what you have just said; and what you have just said does not agree with what you said before. They do not corroborate one another,” and he proceeded to ask: “Saccaka how do you like the question I am about to ask? You have said: ‘The six-fold consciousness is self.’ If so, do you have power over that six-fold consciousness and can you say: ‘Let my six-fold consciousness be thus; let my six-fold consciousness be not thus?’ Saccaka replied: “Honourable Gotama, I do not have the power.”
Then the Buddha warned him: “Saccaka, think it over again, ponder over it again before you give an answer. What you said before does not agree with what you have just said; and what you have just said does not agree with what you said before. They do not corroborate one another.”
The Buddha continued to exhort Saccaka by expounding a discourse which involves questioning and answering three times (te-parivatta-dhamma-desanā).”
“Saccaka what do you think of this? Is corporeality permanent or impermanent?” Saccaka answered: “Impermanent, Gotama.” – “That which is impermanent, is it suffering (dukkha) or pleasant (sukha)?” – “It is suffering, Gotama.” – “Would it be proper to consider that this corporeality, which is impermanent, suffering and subject to change as: ‘This corporeality is mine through clinging, this corporeality is I through conceit, or this is self through wrong view?” – “Saccaka answered: “Gotama, it is indeed not proper.”
“Wanderer Saccaka, what do you think of this? Is sensation permanent or impermanent? Is perception permanent or impermanent? Are volitions permanent or impermanent? Saccaka, how do you think of the question that I am about to ask. Are the six kinds of consciousness permanent or impermanent?” Saccaka answered: “Ven. Gotama they are impermanent.” – “That which is impermanent, is it suffering or pleasant?” – “It is suffering, Gotama.” Would it be proper to consider the six kinds of consciousness, which are impermanent, suffering and subject to change as: ‘This consciousness is mine through clinging, this consciousness is I through conceit, this consciousness is self through wrong view.” Saccaka answered: “Gotama, it is indeed not proper.”
Just as an expert snake charmer caused the snake concerned to suck its venom out of the bitten part of the body of the victim, even so the Buddha had caused Saccaka to admit, by his own mouth, the fact that the five aggregates (khanda) are impermanent, suffering and insubstantial,
The venom, that is, the false view of the soul (atta), which had appeared out of the mouth of Saccaka, he made to be sucked out by the same mouth of Saccaka and an admission to be uttered that it is not self (anatta), in the presence of the audience.
In this manner the Buddha had Saccaka definitely admit that the five aggregates are impermanent, suffering and insubstantial in the presence of throngs of people, and being desirous of subduing him to accept the truth with his head hanging down, the Buddha went on to ask: “Heretic Saccaka, how would you like the question that I am about to ask? When a person clings to suffering (dukkha), adheres to suffering, cleaves to suffering and considers the suffering of the five-fold aggregates as: ‘This suffering is mine through clinging; this suffering is I through conceit and this suffering is self through wrong view,’ could he himself accurately understand suffering? Could he abide in the complete cessation of suffering?”
Saccaka answered: “Honourable Gotama, how could it be possible! It is an impossibility!” Whereupon, the Buddha went on to ask: “Wanderer Saccaka, how do you think of the question I am about to ask? If that is so, clinging to that suffering of the five aggregates, attached to that suffering of the five aggregates, cleaving to that suffering of the five aggregates, do you not hold wrong view, and consider that: ‘This suffering of the five aggregates is mine through clinging, this suffering five aggregates is I through conceit, this suffering five aggregates is self through wrong view.’ In view of all this, are you on the wrong track in respect of view?” Saccaka answered: “Honourable Gotama, how could it not be so! I do consider it so.”
Then the Buddha gave further exhortation to Saccaka: “Saccaka, it is as if a man, desiring heart-wood, seeking heart-wood, and wandering about, might enter the forest with a sharp hatchet. He might see a plantain tree with a straight stem and devoid of a budding stalk. He might cut off the bottom part and then cut off its crown. Then he might peel the bark of the stem. Having peeled the bark of the stem, that man would not even get sap wood, let alone heart-wood. In the same way, Saccaka, as I question and cross-question you for reasons in regard to your view, you prove to be empty, futile and a great failure.
Saccaka, you have been boasting to the citizens of Vesālī, through empty pride thus: “I have never come across such ascetics and Brahmins as Fully Self-Awakened Buddhas, one who could resist me without perspiring from their arm-pits when I refute and rebuke them on the ground of views; and even senseless logs or wooden blocks could not remain unshaken when I talk about things in terms of views, let alone living beings.”
The Buddha, exposing his golden coloured body to the assembly, then said: “Saccaka, there is no trace of perspiration on my body.”
As a matter of course, a compounded body perspires at one time or the other; hence the Buddha said: “There is no trace of perspiration on my body at the moment.”
As regards the exposition of the golden coloured body it does not mean that the whole body was exposed to view. It is customary among the Buddhas to have the button-knob properly fixed to the button-ring of the robe when they take their seat before an audience. The Buddha, on this occasion, held the robe above the upper part of the throat and dropped just four inches of it to permit the emergence of the golden radiance, whirling round like a stream of liquid gold or flashes of lightning, right round
The Buddha did such a thing to dispel doubt, if there was any, on the part of the people. If the Buddha did not disclose the true aspect by exposing his body, certain people might say: “We can see beads of perspiration streaming down Saccaka’s body; ascetic Gotama had said he had no sweat but we cannot know if it is true because his body is completely cloaked in a double robe.”
When the Buddha had said thus, Saccaka sat speechless with a sad look, drooping shoulders and downcast head and at his wit’s end.
Then the Licchavī Prince Dummukha seeing Saccaka speechless with a sad look, drooping shoulders and downcast head and at his wit’s end, addressed the Buddha: “Most exalted Buddha, a simile has occurred to me.” The Buddha urged him: “Dummukha, reveal it.”
Prince Dummukha addressed the Buddha thus: “Most exalted Buddha, there was a pond near a village or a market. A crab was living in that pond. Many boys and girls, coming out from that village or town, might approach the pond and might go down into the pond. Taking the crab out of the water, they might put it on dry ground. And, venerable sir, as often as that crab would thrust out a claw, these boys and girls would cut it, break it and smash it with sticks and potsherds. Just as that crab, with its claws cut, broken and smashed, would be unable to get back into the pond again as before, even so, venerable sir, Saccaka will be unable now to come round to the Buddha to make refutations and assertions as you have cut, broken and smashed all the distorted, conceited and twisted views of Saccaka.”
Whereupon, Saccaka asked Dummukha: “Dummukha, stop it, Dummukha, stop it; you are a person with rough speech; we are not speaking to you, nor are we discussing with you. I have been discussing with Ven. Gotama.” He thus objected to Dummukha’s participation in the conversation.
When other Licchavī princes heard the simile quoted by Prince Dummukha, they remembered the contemptuous treatment they received at the hands of Saccaka while undergoing training under his care. They thought the tables had been turned and it was the most opportune time for them to take revenge on their common enemy by quoting different similes, in the manner of delivering blows to a fallen enemy. So they waited their turn thinking of the similes they would quote.
Saccaka had a presage of what the princes were planning and what was in store for him. He knew: “These princes were impatiently waiting their turn. If each of them gets the chance to come out with his simile, I will never be able to raise my head again in such crowds.” He therefore planned to avoid such a mishap by approaching the Buddha with a request to solve a problem before they could intervene as planned. It was with this intention that he deterred Prince Dummukha from intervention and approached the Buddha with a request.
“Venerable Gotama, please leave aside my words, as well as those of many of the ascetics and Brahmins. Such words may be taken as idle talk. To what extent does a disciple of yours practise according to the teaching, following the instructions and abiding by the teaching of Gotama, having overcome uncertainty, having dispelled all doubts, having gained the courage of conviction. Is he no longer dependent on others in matters of faith?”
The Buddha gave the following answer in compliance with his request: “Wanderer Saccaka, in this Dispensation, a disciple of mine, who sees any or all corporeality with right understanding as they really are, whether past, future, or present, in oneself or outside oneself, gross or subtle, mean or exalted, far or near, in these eleven different manners, through insight meditation (vipassanā-ñāṇa) and path-knowledge (magga-ñāṇa), thus: ‘This corporeality is not I, this corporeality is not mine, this corporeality is not my self (atta) … all sensation … all perception … all volitions … sees any
According to the canon, the three lower fruition stages are termed the training grounds (sikkha-bhūmi) for those still in training (sikkha); the canonical term for those who have reached the Arahat fruition stage is (Arahatta-puggala) or the abode of the noble persons (ariya-puggala).
Herein, the term “sees” signifies a continuing process, not having completed the act of seeing. Although Saccaka was not acquainted with the terms employed in the Dispensation, it occurred to him that “sees’ is somewhat short of “realization,” and so he addressed the Buddha again.
“Venerable Gotama, to what extent, and in what manner does a monastic become an Arahat, having eliminated the pollutants (āsava), having accomplished the path (magga), having done what is to be done, having laid down the burden of the aggregates, defilements and conditioned existence, having attained his goal of the Arahat fruition (Arahatta-phala), having destroyed all the fetters of existence, and having become emancipated through full comprehension?”
The Buddha replied: “Wanderer Saccaka, in this Dispensation, a disciple of mine, who sees any or all corporeality with right understanding as they really are, whether past, future, or present, in oneself or outside oneself, gross or subtle, mean or exalted, far or near, in these eleven different manners, through insight meditation and path-knowledge thus: ‘This corporeality is not I, this corporeality is not mine, this corporeality is not my self … all sensation … all perception … all volitions … sees any or all of the six-fold consciousnesses thus: ‘This consciousness is not mine, this consciousness is not my self,’ he becomes emancipated, having no clinging.
Wanderer Saccaka, it is to that extent that a disciple of mine become an Arahat, having eliminated the pollutants (āsava), having accomplished the path (magga), having done what is to be done, having laid down the burden of the aggregates, defilements and conditioned existence, having attained his goal of the Arahat fruition (Arahatta-phala), having destroyed all the fetters of existence, and having become emancipated through full comprehension.
Wanderer Saccaka, such a monastic, with the mind thus emancipated becomes endowed with three eminent qualities: eminence in insight, eminence in practice and eminence in emancipation.
Eminence in insight means insight into Nibbāna; eminence in practice means perfect practice, the noble path of eight constituents; eminence in emancipation means the attainment of the Arahat fruition.
Wanderer Saccaka, a monastic with his mind thus emancipated, reveres, esteems, honours, and venerates the Buddha saying: [This verse seems to be based on a prose section of the Short Discourse about Saccaka (Cūḷa-saccaka-sutta, MN 35), and may have been composed by Sayādaw himself.]
Buddho bodhāya desesi, danto yo damathāya ca,
samathāya santo dhammaṁ, tinno va taraṇāya ca,
nibbuto nibbānatthāya, taṁ lokasaraṇaṁ name.
Our teacher, the Buddha, having gained Awakening with regard to the four noble truths, expounds the Dhamma to enlighten sentient beings. Our teacher, the Buddha, having subdued or tamed himself, expounds the Dhamma to tame sentient beings. Our teacher, the Buddha, having extinguished the flame of the defilements himself, expounds the Dhamma to sentient beings to help them extinguish the flame of their defilements. Our teacher, the Buddha, having crossed over the four great floods (ogha) of sensual desire, rebirth, wrong views and ignorance, expounds the Dhamma for crossing over. Our teacher, the Buddha, having achieved the total extinction of the defilements (kilesa), expounds the Dhamma to sentient beings, for the achievement of the total extinction of their defilements.
An Alms-Meal Offered by Saccaka
When the Buddha had thus explained the exalted state of the Arahat fruition, Saccaka addressed him: “Venerable Gotama, we have, indeed, offended you and were impudent to think that we could dispute your views and refute them. We have tried to disparage you with harsh and discourteous words.
Venerable Gotama, for example, a person might find safety after attacking an elephant in must. But there could be no safety for a man attacking the honourable Gotama.
Venerable Gotama, a man who attacks a blazing mass of fire might find safety but there could be no safety for a man attacking the honourable Gotama.
Venerable Gotama, a man who attacks a dreadful and poisonous snake might find safety, but there could be no safety for a man attacking the honourable Gotama.
Venerable Gotama, we have, indeed, offended you and were impudent to think that we could dispute your views and refute them. We have tried to disparage you with harsh and discourteous words.”
Saccaka said, “… there could be no safety for a man attacking the honourable Gotama.” This meant that anyone, who chanced to pass strictures on venerable Gotama in a debate on views, cannot escape from being destroyed and has to depart with his views completely demolished. It should be noted that the Buddha did not cause harm to the life of anyone, like a big elephant, a great bonfire or a venomous snake.
Saccaka had made such a statement, with three similes, not intending to praise the Buddha, but to blow his own trumpet. For example, a king, who had caused the death of an enemy might speak highly of the defeated by remarks, such as: “That man is such a brave and courageous one,” just to glorify his feat of arms.
Saccaka had, in like manner, praised the Buddha, who was difficult to be approached by an ordinary being, by the similes of a big elephant, a great bonfire and a venomous snake, just to show that he was the only wise man with enough courage to have challenged the Buddha to a debate on views.
When Saccaka had thus indirectly praised himself he turned to the Buddha and presented an invitation: “Venerable Gotama, may the honourable Gotama be pleased to accept my offering of an alms meal, together with the community of monastics at my place tomorrow.” The Buddha accepted his invitation by keeping silent.
Saccaka then turned to the Licchavī princes and said: “Let the Licchavī princes listen to me. Venerable Gotama has accepted my invitation to the food offering at my place tomorrow. You might bring whatever you think is suitable for them.” When the night passed, they all brought 500 pots of cooked food to him. Then Saccaka,
Then in the morning, the Buddha, having arranged his robes and taking his alms bowl and double robe, went to Saccaka’s place and took the seat prepared for him, together with the community of monastics. Saccaka served, with his own hands, sumptuous food, both hard and soft, to the monastics headed by the Buddha, till they were completely satisfied and could not take any more.
When Saccaka knew that the Buddha had finished taking the meal, he sat down in a suitable place and addressed him: “Gotama, may the main beneficial result accruing from this alms meal (dāna) and the subsidiary consequences of this great offering be for the well-being of the supporters, i.e., the Licchavīs.”
The main beneficial results mean future existence in the form of the five aggregates in the Deva realms, or happy circumstances in the human world; the subsidiary consequences mean wealth, properties, regalia, etc., necessary for sumptuous living conditions.
Saccaka had made such a wish under the impression that only Licchavī princes were entitled to enjoy the fruits of the act of merit, which was performed with the food donated by them. But it was Saccaka himself who should enjoy the reward because he had actually made the offering to the Buddha and the Saṅgha with what he had received from the Licchavī princes.
The Buddha therefore removed his wrong impression by saying: “Wanderer Saccaka, the merit goes to the Licchavī princes for gifts offered to a recipient like you, who is not free from lust, hatred and delusion. Saccaka, the merit goes to you for gifts offered to a recipient like me, who is free from lust, hatred and delusion.” Thus the Buddha impressed upon his mind the idea of consequences of deeds of merit so as to let it become a part of his nature.
Expounding of Mahā Saccaka-sutta
The above is the Short Discourse about Saccaka (Cūḷa-saccaka-sutta, MN 35). This is not the only discourse that the Buddha had expounded to Saccaka. The Long Discourse about Saccaka (Mahā-saccaka-sutta, MN 36) was also expounded to him at a later date. The Long Discourse about Saccaka deals with two modes of meditation: contemplation of the body and contemplation of the mind, and two types of persons: a bewildered person (sammūḷha-puggala) and one who is without bewilderment (asammūhḷa-puggala). For full particulars, please refer to the text.
The Buddha expounded the Short Discourse about Saccaka and the Long Discourse about Saccaka. The former is as long as a section for recitation (bhāṇavāra), while the Long Discourse about Saccaka is as long as one and a half sections for recitation. In spite of these long discourses and exhortation by the Buddha, Saccaka did not attain any stage of the paths and fruitions nor did he receive ordination. He did not take refuge in the Three Treasures either. A question might be asked as to why then the Buddha taught to him such exhaustive discourses (sutta)?
Ven. Kāḷa Buddharakkhita
The Buddha taught the discourses to sow the seed of the noble truths in him so as to reap the harvest of the paths and fruitions, in due course. This is an explanation in detail: The Buddha perceived that Saccaka lacked sufficing conditions for the attainment of the paths and fruitions during his present life time. But he was destined to become an Arahat 200 years after the Buddha’s Parinibbāna when the Dispensation would be in full bloom in Śrī Laṅkā. He would be born to the family of a minister of a king. When he came of age he would become a monastic and after learning the Three Baskets (Tipiṭaka) and practising insight meditation (vipassanā) he would attain the Arahat fruition (Arahatta-phala), endowed with the analytic knowledges (paṭisambhidā-ñāṇa). He would be popularly known as Ven. Kāḷa Buddharakkhita. Perceiving his future destiny
When the Dispensation was in full bloom in Śrī Laṅkā, he would pass away from the celestial plane and he was reborn in the family of a minister at a village that was responsible for the provision of food for a great monastery known as Dakkhiṇagiri. He would receive ordination when he came of age and study the Three Baskets (Tipiṭaka). He eventually rose to the status of a senior monastic in charge of a section of the Saṅgha. He would go to pay homage, in the company of his numerous disciples, to his preceptor, who was responsible for his ordination.
The preceptor would decide to censure his own disciple, Buddharakkhita, for neglecting the practices necessary for liberation, though he had studied the Three Baskets. The teacher then decided therefore, not to sit face to face with the disciple.
Going to his master’s monastery on the following day, Kāḷa Buddharakkhita would ask his teacher: “Revered sir, now that I have come to see you after completion of the full course of learning the scriptures, I find that you do not seem to have the desire to see me. May I know if there is anything wrong I have done?”
His teacher would answer: “Buddharakkhita, do you think that you have accomplished all the tasks incumbent on a monastic just because you have studied the Five Collections (nikāya) and the Three Baskets?” Whereupon, he would seek for instructions by asking: “Revered sir, if so, what should I do?” His preceptor would then give the following instructions: “You must give up all the obligations to your followers (gaṇa-paṭibodha) which obstruct your progress, and cut off all the remaining defilements by repairing to the Cetiya mountain monastery and devote yourself entirely to meditation.
Ven. Kāḷa Buddharakkhita would do as he was advised by his old master and in due course he attained the exalted state of an Arahat with the analytic knolwedges (paṭisambhidā). He would continue to reside at the Cetiya mountain monastery amidst many disciples, and became well-known as the master of the king and the commoners, as well.
At one time, King Tissa was doing religious practice in a cave known as Rāja Lena on the hill of the Cetiya. He left words with a monastic who was attending upon Ven. Kāḷa Buddharakkhita: “Revered sir, kindly let me know when Ven. Kāḷa Buddharakkhita attends to questions or preaches Dhamma.” On a day fixed for teaching, Ven. Kāḷa Buddharakkhita went to the precincts of the Khandhaka relic shrine (stūpa) and sat on the Dhamma throne prepared at the base of an ebony tree.
Ven. Kāḷa Buddharakkhita recited the introductory verses and started to preach the Discourse at Kālaka’s Monastery (Kāḷakārāma-sutta, AN 4.24). The monastic attendant to the elder went to King Tissa and informed him of the teaching of the Dhamma by the great elder (mahā-thera).
King Tissa reached the site of the Dhamma teaching while the elder was still reciting the introductory verses. He stood listening to the discourse on the fringe of the big audience, in the guise of a commoner, throughout the three watches of the night. He said: Sādhu, sādhu, at the conclusion of the discourse. The great elder recognized him to be the king and asked: “How long have you been here?” “Revered Sir, from the outset of the discourse,” was his reply. Then the great elder said: “Your majesty, you have done a difficult thing indeed.” To this, the king made this solemn reply: “Revered sir, this is not a difficult thing at all for me to stand and listen to the discourse for a night. In fact, I had been taking note of every word and following the discourse without my mind being led astray at any moment, from start to finish. This statement of mine is true, if I have told a lie, may I be stripped off my sovereignty over this island of Śrī Laṅkā, without having any more authority even over a tiny spot of land the size of the tip of a whip.” He thus made a solemn vow very boldly.
Infinite Attributes of the Buddha
The Discourse at Kālaka’s Monastery (Kāḷakārāma-sutta, AN 4.24) illustrates the attributes of the Buddha, and therefore King Tissa asked the great elder: “Revered sir, should we take it that you have described all the attributes of the Buddha in full or are there any more besides these?” The great elder replied: “Your majesty, attributes of the Buddha are infinitely incalculable, many times more than what I have just described.”
The king then requested: “Revered sir, kindly explain this to us with an example.” The great elder gave an example in response to the king’s request. “Your majesty, suppose there is a state paddy field measuring 1,750 acres. One pai equals around 1.75 acres, and is covered by five baskets of seed. The amount of seeds present in an ear or spike of corn is infinitesimal compared with the number of seeds borne by the rest of the corn spikes in the whole field; even so the attributes of the Buddha that remain undescribed by me are innumerably times greater than what I have just described.”
The king said: “Revered sir, please give us another example.” The great elder said: “Just as the amount of water that would pass through the eye of a needle, which is dipped in alignment with the current of the river Ganges, is negligible when compared with the remaining volume of water that flows down the mighty river, even so the attributes of the Buddha that I have described is negligible compared to those that still remain undescribed.”
The king said: “Revered sir, please give us one more example.” The great elder said: “A tiny sky-lark can be seen flying merrily about the sky. Just compare the area of space that is covered by its spread-out wings with the remaining open space, and, tell me which portion of the space is greater?” The king readily responded: “Revered sir, now that you have said it, it goes without saying that the amount of space occupied by the spreading wing of the bird is negligible when compared to the remaining, infinite portion of the sky.” The great elder told the king: “Your majesty, even so, the attributes of the Buddha that remain unrevealed by me are far greater than what I have just described.”
The king then addressed the great elder: “Revered sir, you have taught well by comparing the infinity of the attributes of the Buddha with the infinity of space. May I express my profound respect and deep sense of gratitude to you. We are incapable of making a fitting homage to you. May I therefore offer you kingship and sovereign power over the island of Śrī Laṅkā with an area of 300 leagues! This is a humble offering of a poor man.”
The king had evaluated his kingship with regard to the invaluable discourse on the attributes of the Buddha; hence he likened the offering of his kingship as a poor man’s gift.
Ven. Kāḷa Buddharakkhita made this remark in response to the king’s offer: “Your royal highness, you have, indeed, shown your profound respect and deep sense of gratitude to me, and I now return the kingship, which you have offered to me with all its glories, to you with my blessings: my sincere wish is that you rule the people of Śrī Laṅkā and govern them with righteousness.”
This Arahat Kāḷa Buddharakkhita had set an example to the members of the Saṅgha. The kingship and regalia or emblems of royalty, offered out of deep devotional faith and reverence to monastics are not to be accepted since they are appurtenances and luxurious belongings of worldly people. They should be returned to the supporters.
During the fifth Rains Retreat (Vassa), the Buddha had made the first and second visit to Śrī Laṅkā to give exhortations to the dragon King Cūḷodara and his nephew Mahodara. But as the Buddha made a third visit to the island during the eighth Rains Retreat, we have deferred inclusion of the first two visits in order to give a combined account of the three visits when we describe the events of the eighth Rains Retreat.